DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending. Claims 1-2, 6-8, 12-14, and 18 have been amended.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(a) and 112(b) rejection set forth previously in Final Office Action dated 10/17/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui (JPH10215736A) in view of Takenouchi (US 2015/0201595 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yasui teaches a guide ring comprising:
a base member having a ring shape, being made of a non-oxide ceramic (“As shown in FIG. 2, the fishing line guide 11 includes a plate-shaped metal guide frame 20 and a hard ceramic guide ring 21 that is fitted in the lower part of the guide frame 20 and through which the fishing line can pass.”, Para. [0011]), and
comprising a recessed portion, wherein the recessed portion comprises a pair of tapered surfaces forming a cone-shaped portion (“As shown in FIG. 4, the inner peripheral portion of the guide ring 21 may be formed in a polygonal shape, and the movement restricting portion 21 a may be configured by the corner portion.”, Para. [0014]; further, see Fig. 4 showing “corner portion” 21 as having recesses on surface 21a, comprising a pair of tapered surfaces meeting at “corner portion” 21 forming a cone shape).
Yasui does not expressly disclose an oxide layer that includes an oxide of an element that is contained in the non-oxide ceramic located on the pair of tapered surfaces of the recessed portion.
However, in an analogous fishing line guide art, Takenouchi teaches an oxide layer that includes an oxide of an element that is contained in the non-oxide ceramic located on the pair of tapered surfaces of the recessed portion (“Here, the ceramics which can be applied to the material of the fishing line guide member 1 includes oxide ceramics such as alumina (Al.sub.2O.sub.3), zirconia (ZrO.sub.2), or spinel (MgAl.sub.2O.sub.4), or non-oxide ceramics such as silicon carbide (SiC), silicon nitride (Si.sub.3N.sub.4), aluminum nitride (AlN), titanium nitride (TiN), or titanium carbide (TiC)… it is preferable that the fishing line guide member is formed of a silicon carbide sintered body or an aluminum nitride sintered body. In addition, when the maximum thickness T of the fishing line guide member 1 is thin, it is preferable that the fishing line guide member is formed of a silicon nitride sintered body having mechanical characteristics such as excellent mechanical strength, abrasion resistance, or toughness.”, Para. [0069], thus formed of at least an element such as aluminum; note, Yasui above is relied upon for teaching recessed portions comprising tapered surfaces).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the guide ring of Yasui further including an oxide layer that includes an oxide of an element that is contained in the non-oxide ceramic located on the pair of tapered surfaces of the recessed portion, as taught by Takenouchi, with a reasonable expectation for success, to prevent water from accumulating in the gaps of the guide ring, providing a corrosive resistant surface, as discussed by Kiyota, Paras. [0002]-[0004]. Further, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, such as for abrasion resistance to be used with fishing line, as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 2, Yasui teaches wherein at a bottom portion of the recessed portion, a radius of curvature of a second surface of the metal oxide layer (note, Takenouchi is relied upon above for teaching of applying the metal oxide layer to the surfaces of the ceramic guide ring) is greater than a radius of curvature of the first surface of the base member (Fig. 4, the radius of curvature of flat/plane second surfaces of “guide ring” 21 approaches infinity and therefore the plane second surfaces inherently have a greater radius of curvature compared to the corner or recessed first surface 21a at the bottom half of the “guide ring” 21).
Note, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the guide ring of Yasui wherein at a bottom portion of the recessed portion, a radius of curvature of a second surface of the oxide layer is greater than a radius of curvature of the first surface of the base member, because the dimensions of the guide ring are not integral to the device’s function, rather it is a result of other parameters chosen. For example, while limiting the radius of curvature could provide benefits to the stress concentration at the recesses or corners thus mitigating stress at the recesses or corners, it does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, Yasui teaches wherein a width of the recessed portion is greater than a depth of the recessed portion (Width best seen in Fig. 3, with width across corners/recesses 21a is greater than the depth of the corners/recesses with respect to the guide ring inner radius seen in Fig. 2. Similarly, depth shown in Figs. 4-5 at 21a is less than depth shown in Fig. 2, and therefore the width shown in Fig. 3 is greater).
Note, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the guide ring of Yasui wherein a width of the recessed portion is greater than a depth of the recessed portion, because the dimensions of the guide ring are not integral to the device’s function, rather it is a result of other parameters chosen. For example, while limiting the depth and width of the corners or recesses could provide benefits to the stress concentration at the recesses or corners thus mitigating stress at the recesses or corners, it does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, Yasui teaches wherein in a cross-sectional view of the recessed portion (See Fig. 4), an angle formed by a pair of tapered surfaces in the recessed portion is an obtuse angle (Fig. 4 shows angle of corners/recesses as an obtuse angle).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui (JPH10215736A) in view of Takenouchi (US 2015/0201595 A1) as applied to claims 1 above, further in view of Wen (JP3104774U).
Regarding claim 4, Yasui as modified by Takenouchi does not expressly disclose wherein a groove having a width smaller than the width of the recessed portion is provided at the bottom portion of the recessed portion.
However, in an analogous fishing guide art, Wen teaches wherein a groove having a width smaller than the width of the recessed portion is provided at the bottom portion of the recessed portion (See Figs. 3-6, smaller grooves shown provided at bottom portion of recessed portion of guide ring at 110 and 120 of Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the guide ring of Yasui in view of Takenouchi wherein a groove having a width smaller than the width of the recessed portion is provided at the bottom portion of the recessed portion, as taught by Wen, with a reasonable expectation for success, since “the centering for the fishing line guide of the fishing rod according to the present invention reduces the frictional heat due to the sliding contact between the centering and the fishing line by forming the recess and the projection on the centering in contact with the fishing line. This has the effect of reducing thermal deformation of the fishing line, preventing the fishing line from being cut by frictional heat, and increasing the heat radiation efficiency by increasing the surface area”, as described by Wen, Description, para. [0052], thereby preventing thermal deformation of the guide ring 21 of Yasui which could break the fishing line.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui (JPH10215736A) in view of Takenouchi (US 2015/0201595 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Takahata et al. (JP2002361804A).
Regarding claim 6, Yasui as modified by Takenouchi does not expressly disclose wherein the oxide layer comprises a crystal phase of at least one selected from the group consisting of cristobalite and tridymite.
However, in an analogous material for marine and household good surfaces art, Takahata (“the sheet-like reinforcing material having the above-mentioned photocurable molding material layer as a structure reinforces structural members, pipes, lining materials and the like in various kinds of buildings, machinery, automobiles, ships, household goods and the like.”, Para. [0003]) teaches wherein the oxide layer comprises a crystal phase of at least one selected from the group consisting of cristobalite and tridymite (“Further, for wear resistance applications, cristobalite, silica, river sand and the like are preferable.”, Para. [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the guide ring of Yasui in view of Takenouchi wherein the oxide layer comprises a crystal phase of at least one selected from the group consisting of cristobalite and tridymite, as taught by Takahata, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide wear resistance to the guide ring 21 surface of Yasui. Further, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, such as for wear resistance as the fishing line rubs against the guide ring surface, as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 7-9, 11, 13-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui (JPH10215736A) in view of Takenouchi (US 2015/0201595 A1) and Kiyota (JP2002291378A).
Regarding claim 7, Yasui teaches a guide ring comprising:
a base member having a ring shape, being made of a non-oxide ceramic (“As shown in FIG. 2, the fishing line guide 11 includes a plate-shaped metal guide frame 20 and a hard ceramic guide ring 21 that is fitted in the lower part of the guide frame 20 and through which the fishing line can pass.”, Para. [0011]), and
comprising a recessed portion, wherein the recessed portion comprises a first surfaces (“As shown in FIG. 4, the inner peripheral portion of the guide ring 21 may be formed in a polygonal shape, and the movement restricting portion 21 a may be configured by the corner portion.”, Para. [0014]; further, see Fig. 4 showing “corner portion” 21 as having recesses on surface 21a).
Yasui does not expressly disclose an oxide layer that includes an oxide of an element that is contained in the non-oxide ceramic, the oxide layer is located on the first surface of the recessed portion.
However, in an analogous fishing line guide art, Takenouchi teaches an oxide layer that includes an oxide of an element that is contained in the non-oxide ceramic, the oxide layer is located on the first surface of the recessed portion (“Here, the ceramics which can be applied to the material of the fishing line guide member 1 includes oxide ceramics such as alumina (Al.sub.2O.sub.3), zirconia (ZrO.sub.2), or spinel (MgAl.sub.2O.sub.4), or non-oxide ceramics such as silicon carbide (SiC), silicon nitride (Si.sub.3N.sub.4), aluminum nitride (AlN), titanium nitride (TiN), or titanium carbide (TiC)… it is preferable that the fishing line guide member is formed of a silicon carbide sintered body or an aluminum nitride sintered body. In addition, when the maximum thickness T of the fishing line guide member 1 is thin, it is preferable that the fishing line guide member is formed of a silicon nitride sintered body having mechanical characteristics such as excellent mechanical strength, abrasion resistance, or toughness.”, Para. [0069], thus formed of at least an element such as aluminum; note, Yasui above is relied upon for teaching recessed portions comprising tapered surfaces).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the guide ring of Yasui further including an oxide layer is located on the first surface of the recessed portion, as taught by Takenouchi, with a reasonable expectation for success, to prevent water from accumulating in the gaps of the guide ring, providing a corrosive resistant surface, as discussed by Kiyota, Paras. [0002]-[0004]. Further, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, such as for abrasion resistance to be used with fishing line, as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Yasui and Takenouchi does not expressly disclose the oxide layer as consisting essentially of silicone oxide.
However, in an analogous fishing line guide art, Kiyota teaches the oxide layer as consisting essentially of silicone oxide (“forming the water-repellent layer 21 in the relationship between the ring portion 7 of the fishing line guide 3 and the frame 8 holding the ring portion 7… shown in FIG. 3, a super water repellent material is applied to the surface of the ring portion 7 to form a water repellent layer 21”, Paras. [0032]-[0033], See Figs. 2-3; “As the water-repellent particles, tetrafluoroethylene resin, tetrafluoroethylene resin-hexafluoropolypropylene copolymer resin, trifluoroethylene chloride resin, vinyl fluoride resin, vinylidene tetrafluoride resin, tetrafluoroethylene resin can be used. Examples thereof include…silicon oxide and silicon resin.”, Para. [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the guide ring of Yasui further including the oxide layer as consisting essentially of silicone oxide, as taught by Kiyota, with a reasonable expectation for success, to prevent water from accumulating in the gaps of the guide ring, providing a corrosive resistant surface, as discussed by Kiyota, Paras. [0002]-[0004]. Further, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, such as for water resistant to be used in fishing, as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 8, Yasui teaches wherein at a bottom portion of the recessed portion, a radius of curvature of a second surface of the oxide layer (note, Takenouchi and Kiyota is relied upon above for teaching of applying the oxide layer to the surfaces of the ceramic guide ring) is greater than a radius of curvature of the first surface of the base member (Fig. 4, the radius of curvature of flat/plane second surfaces of “guide ring” 21 approaches infinity and therefore the plane second surfaces inherently have a greater radius of curvature compared to the corner or recessed first surface 21a at the bottom half of the “guide ring” 21).
Note, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the guide ring of Yasui wherein at a bottom portion of the recessed portion, a radius of curvature of a second surface of the oxide layer is greater than a radius of curvature of the first surface of the base member, because the dimensions of the guide ring are not integral to the device’s function, rather it is a result of other parameters chosen. For example, while limiting the radius of curvature could provide benefits to the stress concentration at the recesses or corners thus mitigating stress at the recesses or corners, it does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, Yasui teaches wherein a width of the recessed portion is greater than a depth of the recessed portion (Width best seen in Fig. 3, with width across corners/recesses 21a is greater than the depth of the corners/recesses with respect to the guide ring inner radius seen in Fig. 2. Similarly, depth shown in Figs. 4-5 at 21a is less than depth shown in Fig. 2, and therefore the width shown in Fig. 3 is greater).
Note, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the guide ring of Yasui wherein a width of the recessed portion is greater than a depth of the recessed portion, because the dimensions of the guide ring are not integral to the device’s function, rather it is a result of other parameters chosen. For example, while limiting the depth and width of the corners or recesses could provide benefits to the stress concentration at the recesses or corners thus mitigating stress at the recesses or corners, it does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 11, Yasui teaches wherein in a cross-sectional view of the recessed portion (See Fig. 4), an angle formed by a pair of tapered surfaces in the recessed portion is an obtuse angle (Fig. 4 shows angle of corners/recesses as an obtuse angle).
Regarding claim 13, Yasui teaches a guide ring comprising:
a base member having a ring shape, being made of a non-oxide ceramic (“As shown in FIG. 2, the fishing line guide 11 includes a plate-shaped metal guide frame 20 and a hard ceramic guide ring 21 that is fitted in the lower part of the guide frame 20 and through which the fishing line can pass.”, Para. [0011]), and
comprising a recessed portion, wherein the recessed portion comprises a pair of tapered surfaces forming a cone-shaped portion (“As shown in FIG. 4, the inner peripheral portion of the guide ring 21 may be formed in a polygonal shape, and the movement restricting portion 21 a may be configured by the corner portion.”, Para. [0014]; further, see Fig. 4 showing “corner portion” 21 as having recesses on surface 21a).
Yasui does not expressly disclose an oxide layer that includes an oxide of an element that is contained in the non-oxide ceramic, the oxide layer is located on the first surface of the recessed portion.
However, in an analogous fishing line guide art, Takenouchi teaches an oxide layer that includes an oxide of an element that is contained in the non-oxide ceramic, the oxide layer is located on the first surface of the recessed portion (“Here, the ceramics which can be applied to the material of the fishing line guide member 1 includes oxide ceramics such as alumina (Al.sub.2O.sub.3), zirconia (ZrO.sub.2), or spinel (MgAl.sub.2O.sub.4), or non-oxide ceramics such as silicon carbide (SiC), silicon nitride (Si.sub.3N.sub.4), aluminum nitride (AlN), titanium nitride (TiN), or titanium carbide (TiC)… it is preferable that the fishing line guide member is formed of a silicon carbide sintered body or an aluminum nitride sintered body. In addition, when the maximum thickness T of the fishing line guide member 1 is thin, it is preferable that the fishing line guide member is formed of a silicon nitride sintered body having mechanical characteristics such as excellent mechanical strength, abrasion resistance, or toughness.”, Para. [0069], thus formed of at least an element such as aluminum; note, Yasui above is relied upon for teaching recessed portions comprising tapered surfaces).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the guide ring of Yasui further including an oxide layer that includes an oxide of an element that is contained in the non-oxide ceramic, the oxide layer is located on the first surface of the recessed portion, as taught by Takenouchi, with a reasonable expectation for success, to prevent water from accumulating in the gaps of the guide ring, providing a corrosive resistant surface, as discussed by Kiyota, Paras. [0002]-[0004]. Further, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, such as for abrasion resistance to be used with fishing line, as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Yasui and Takenouchi does not expressly disclose the oxide layer as consisting essentially of silicone oxide.
However, in an analogous fishing line guide art, Kiyota teaches the oxide layer as consisting essentially of silicone oxide (“forming the water-repellent layer 21 in the relationship between the ring portion 7 of the fishing line guide 3 and the frame 8 holding the ring portion 7… shown in FIG. 3, a super water repellent material is applied to the surface of the ring portion 7 to form a water repellent layer 21”, Paras. [0032]-[0033], See Figs. 2-3; “As the water-repellent particles, tetrafluoroethylene resin, tetrafluoroethylene resin-hexafluoropolypropylene copolymer resin, trifluoroethylene chloride resin, vinyl fluoride resin, vinylidene tetrafluoride resin, tetrafluoroethylene resin can be used. Examples thereof include…silicon oxide and silicon resin.”, Paras. [0021]-[0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the guide ring of Yasui further including the oxide layer as consisting essentially of silicone oxide, as taught by Kiyota, with a reasonable expectation for success, to prevent water from accumulating in the gaps of the guide ring, providing a corrosive resistant surface, as discussed by Kiyota, Paras. [0002]-[0004]. Further, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, such as for water resistant to be used in fishing, as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 14, Yasui teaches wherein at a bottom portion of the recessed portion, a radius of curvature of a second surface of the oxide layer (note, Kiyota is relied upon above for teaching of applying the oxide layer to the surfaces of the ceramic guide ring) is greater than a radius of curvature of the first surface of the base member (Fig. 4, the radius of curvature of flat/plane second surfaces of “guide ring” 21 approaches infinity and therefore the plane second surfaces inherently have a greater radius of curvature compared to the corner or recessed first surface 21a at the bottom half of the “guide ring” 21).
Note, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the guide ring of Yasui wherein at a bottom portion of the recessed portion, a radius of curvature of a second surface of the oxide layer is greater than a radius of curvature of the first surface of the base member, because the dimensions of the guide ring are not integral to the device’s function, rather it is a result of other parameters chosen. For example, while limiting the radius of curvature could provide benefits to the stress concentration at the recesses or corners thus mitigating stress at the recesses or corners, it does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 15, Yasui teaches wherein a width of the recessed portion is greater than a depth of the recessed portion (Width best seen in Fig. 3, with width across corners/recesses 21a is greater than the depth of the corners/recesses with respect to the guide ring inner radius seen in Fig. 2. Similarly, depth shown in Figs. 4-5 at 21a is less than depth shown in Fig. 2, and therefore the width shown in Fig. 3 is greater).
Note, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the guide ring of Yasui wherein a width of the recessed portion is greater than a depth of the recessed portion, because the dimensions of the guide ring are not integral to the device’s function, rather it is a result of other parameters chosen. For example, while limiting the depth and width of the corners or recesses could provide benefits to the stress concentration at the recesses or corners thus mitigating stress at the recesses or corners, it does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 17, Yasui teaches wherein in a cross-sectional view of the recessed portion (See Fig. 4), an angle formed by a pair of tapered surfaces in the recessed portion is an obtuse angle (Fig. 4 shows angle of corners/recesses as an obtuse angle).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui (JPH10215736A) in view of Takenouchi (US 2015/0201595 A1) and Kiyota (JP2002291378A) as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Wen (JP3104774U).
Regarding claim 10, Yasui as modified by Takenouchi and Kiyota does not expressly disclose wherein a groove having a width smaller than the width of the recessed portion is provided at the bottom portion of the recessed portion.
However, in an analogous fishing guide art, Wen teaches wherein a groove having a width smaller than the width of the recessed portion is provided at the bottom portion of the recessed portion (See Figs. 3-6, smaller grooves shown provided at bottom portion of recessed portion of guide ring at 110 and 120 of Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the guide ring of Yasui in view of Takenouchi and Kiyota wherein a groove having a width smaller than the width of the recessed portion is provided at the bottom portion of the recessed portion, as taught by Wen, with a reasonable expectation for success, since “the centering for the fishing line guide of the fishing rod according to the present invention reduces the frictional heat due to the sliding contact between the centering and the fishing line by forming the recess and the projection on the centering in contact with the fishing line. This has the effect of reducing thermal deformation of the fishing line, preventing the fishing line from being cut by frictional heat, and increasing the heat radiation efficiency by increasing the surface area”, as described by Wen, Description, para. [0052], thereby preventing thermal deformation of the guide ring 21 of Yasui which could break the fishing line.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui (JPH10215736A) in view of Takenouchi (US 2015/0201595 A1) and Kiyota (JP2002291378A) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, further in view of Takahata et al. (JP2002361804A).
Regarding claim 12, Yasui as modified by Takenouchi and Kiyota does not expressly disclose wherein the oxide layer comprises a crystal phase of at least one selected from the group consisting of cristobalite and tridymite.
However, in an analogous material for marine and household good surfaces art, Takahata (“the sheet-like reinforcing material having the above-mentioned photocurable molding material layer as a structure reinforces structural members, pipes, lining materials and the like in various kinds of buildings, machinery, automobiles, ships, household goods and the like.”, Para. [0003]) teaches wherein the oxide layer comprises a crystal phase of at least one selected from the group consisting of cristobalite and tridymite (“Further, for wear resistance applications, cristobalite, silica, river sand and the like are preferable.”, Para. [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the guide ring of Yasui in view of Takenouchi and Kiyota wherein the oxide layer comprises a crystal phase of at least one selected from the group consisting of cristobalite and tridymite, as taught by Takahata, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide wear resistance to the guide ring 21 surface of Yasui. Further, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, such as for wear resistance as the fishing line rubs against the guide ring surface, as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui (JPH10215736A) in view of Takenouchi (US 2015/0201595 A1) and Kiyota (JP2002291378A) as applied to claim 13 above, further in view of Wen (JP3104774U).
Regarding claim 16, Yasui as modified by Takenouchi and Kiyota does not expressly disclose wherein a groove having a width smaller than the width of the recessed portion is provided at the bottom portion of the recessed portion.
However, in an analogous fishing guide art, Wen teaches wherein a groove having a width smaller than the width of the recessed portion is provided at the bottom portion of the recessed portion (See Figs. 3-6, smaller grooves shown provided at bottom portion of recessed portion of guide ring at 110 and 120 of Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the guide ring of Yasui in view of Takenouchi and Kiyota wherein a groove having a width smaller than the width of the recessed portion is provided at the bottom portion of the recessed portion, as taught by Wen, with a reasonable expectation for success, since “the centering for the fishing line guide of the fishing rod according to the present invention reduces the frictional heat due to the sliding contact between the centering and the fishing line by forming the recess and the projection on the centering in contact with the fishing line. This has the effect of reducing thermal deformation of the fishing line, preventing the fishing line from being cut by frictional heat, and increasing the heat radiation efficiency by increasing the surface area”, as described by Wen, Description, para. [0052], thereby preventing thermal deformation of the guide ring 21 of Yasui which could break the fishing line.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui (JPH10215736A) in view of Takenouchi (US 2015/0201595 A1) and Kiyota (JP2002291378A) as applied to claim 13 above, further in view of Takahata et al. (JP2002361804A).
Regarding claim 18, Yasui as modified by Takenouchi and Kiyota does not expressly disclose wherein the oxide layer comprises a crystal phase of at least one selected from the group consisting of cristobalite and tridymite.
However, in an analogous material for marine and household good surfaces art, Takahata (“the sheet-like reinforcing material having the above-mentioned photocurable molding material layer as a structure reinforces structural members, pipes, lining materials and the like in various kinds of buildings, machinery, automobiles, ships, household goods and the like.”, Para. [0003]) teaches wherein the oxide layer comprises a crystal phase of at least one selected from the group consisting of cristobalite and tridymite (“Further, for wear resistance applications, cristobalite, silica, river sand and the like are preferable.”, Para. [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the guide ring of Yasui in view of Takenouchi and Kiyota wherein the oxide layer comprises a crystal phase of at least one selected from the group consisting of cristobalite and tridymite, as taught by Takahata, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide wear resistance to the guide ring 21 surface of Yasui. Further, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, such as for wear resistance as the fishing line rubs against the guide ring surface, as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “recessed into a surface of the guide ring”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In this case, Yasui, Fig. 4, expressly discloses the limitation as claimed, “a recessed portion, wherein the recessed portion comprises a pair of tapered surfaces forming a cone-shaped portion”:
PNG
media_image1.png
386
361
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See rejection above. While Yasui’s recessed portion is not recessed “into” the surface, it is explicitly shown as a recess along the surface of the guide ring comprising a pair of tapered surfaces. Therefore, Yasui teaches the limitation regarding the tapered surfaces as claimed.
In response to applicant's argument that “an oxide layer that includes an oxide of an element that is contained in the non-oxide ceramic” is not disclosed by the combination of references, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, while Yasui does not expressly disclose the limitation, in an analogous fishing line guide art, Takenouchi teaches an oxide layer that includes an oxide of an element that is contained in the non-oxide ceramic, the oxide layer is located on the first surface of the recessed portion (“Here, the ceramics which can be applied to the material of the fishing line guide member 1 includes oxide ceramics such as alumina (Al.sub.2O.sub.3), zirconia (ZrO.sub.2), or spinel (MgAl.sub.2O.sub.4), or non-oxide ceramics such as silicon carbide (SiC), silicon nitride (Si.sub.3N.sub.4), aluminum nitride (AlN), titanium nitride (TiN), or titanium carbide (TiC)… it is preferable that the fishing line guide member is formed of a silicon carbide sintered body or an aluminum nitride sintered body. In addition, when the maximum thickness T of the fishing line guide member 1 is thin, it is preferable that the fishing line guide member is formed of a silicon nitride sintered body having mechanical characteristics such as excellent mechanical strength, abrasion resistance, or toughness.”, Para. [0069], thus formed of at least an element such as aluminum; note, Yasui above is relied upon for teaching recessed portions comprising tapered surfaces).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the guide ring of Yasui further including an oxide layer that includes an oxide of an element that is contained in the non-oxide ceramic located on the pair of tapered surfaces of the recessed portion, as taught by Takenouchi, with a reasonable expectation for success, to prevent water from accumulating in the gaps of the guide ring, providing a corrosive resistant surface, as discussed by Kiyota, Paras. [0002]-[0004]. Further, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, such as for abrasion resistance to be used with fishing line, as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Thus, in combination, each and every limitation of the independent claims 1 and 7 are disclosed.
In response to applicant's argument that “an oxide layer containing an oxide as a main component consisting essentially of silicon oxide” is not disclosed by the combination of references, it is noted that applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, while Yasui does not expressly disclose the limitation, in an analogous Kiyota teaches the oxide layer as consisting essentially of silicone oxide (“forming the water-repellent layer 21 in the relationship between the ring portion 7 of the fishing line guide 3 and the frame 8 holding the ring portion 7… shown in FIG. 3, a super water repellent material is applied to the surface of the ring portion 7 to form a water repellent layer 21”, Paras. [0032]-[0033], See Figs. 2-3; “As the water-repellent particles, tetrafluoroethylene resin, tetrafluoroethylene resin-hexafluoropolypropylene copolymer resin, trifluoroethylene chloride resin, vinyl fluoride resin, vinylidene tetrafluoride resin, tetrafluoroethylene resin can be used. Examples thereof include…silicon oxide and silicon resin.”, Paras. [0021]-[0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the guide ring of Yasui further including the oxide layer as consisting essentially of silicone oxide, as taught by Kiyota, with a reasonable expectation for success, to prevent water from accumulating in the gaps of the guide ring, providing a corrosive resistant surface, as discussed by Kiyota, Paras. [0002]-[0004]. Further, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, such as for water resistant to be used in fishing, as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Lastly, it is noted that Kiyota is relied upon above for teaching silicon oxide is a material known for it’s use as a “water-repellant particle” before the effective filing date of the claim invention and Takenouchi further discloses it is known to not mix the resin or non-oxide ceramic layers with the oxide, instead applying an oxide ceramic to the base of the guide ring. See above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J SHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am - 4:00 pm EDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647